9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issue involves the jurisdiction of the court to entertain an anticipatory bail application in a case registered by the CBI under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Jurisdictional Dispute: The Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case registered by the CBI in Delhi, but the application was dismissed by the Special Judge in Delhi citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Petitioner argued that Delhi court has jurisdiction as the FIR was filed in Delhi, documents need to be produced in Delhi, and the embezzled money was from a treasury in Delhi. Cited cases to support the claim. Contentions of the Respondent: The Respondent contended that the FIR was registered on the direction of the High Court at Allahabad, and all accused are being produced before the Special Judge in Gaziabad as the corruption occurred in Uttar Pradesh. Facts of the Case: The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad directed the CBI to conduct an enquiry into the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) Scheme in Uttar Pradesh. The accused, including government officials, were involved in embezzlement of funds allocated for hospital upgradation. The accused committed offences under various sections of the IPC and the PC Act. Legal Interpretation: The court referred to Section 4(2) of the PC Act, which specifies that offences shall be tried by the Special Judge for the area where the offence was committed. Cited a Supreme Court case to emphasize the importance of the place where the money was misappropriated. Decision: The court concluded that the offences were committed in Uttar Pradesh, where the funds were embezzled after being entrusted to the NRHM Directorate. Therefore, the Special Judge in Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, has jurisdiction to try the case. The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction in Delhi.
|
